Surendra Kumar, Member (J) - (1.)THIS Review Petition being No. 06 of 2005 in Appeal No. 174 of 2012 has been filed on behalf of the respondent - Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (State Commission) praying therein for reviewing the judgment dated 11.09.2014 passed by this Appellate Tribunal in the said Appeal only to the extent it relates to employees cost, namely, Issue Nos. (i) & (ii).
(2.)WE have heard Mr. Sakesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioner/State Commission and also heard Mr. Anand K. Ganesan, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and perused the judgment dated 11.09.20014 passed by this Tribunal in the aforesaid Appeal.
The only contention of the Review Petitioner in the said Review Petition is that this Appellate Tribunal in the aforesaid judgment dated 11.09.2014 in paragraph Nos. 17, 18 & 40.1. held as under: - -

"17. We are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Sakesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent -State Commission to the effect that the earlier judgments of this Appellate Tribunal pronounced in Appeal No. 153 of 2007 and batch & 40 of 2010 since could not be cited before this Tribunal when this Tribunal was deciding Appeal No. 76 of 2011 and Appeal No. 07 of 2011 & batch regarding strict approach adopted by the State Commission having been approved by this Tribunal, hence the judgments passed in Appeal No. 76 of 2011 & in Appeal No. 07 of 2011 & batch, be treated as per incuriam. Since the strict approach of the State Commission was continuing year after year causing a number of problems and also causing injustice to the successor entities of the Punjab State Electricity Board, this Tribunal considered the pros and cons including the State Regulations, 2005 as subsequently amended in the year 2009 which were amended by the State Commission only after a mandamus issued by this Tribunal, the said judgments cannot be said to be per incuriam because all the aspects including relevant Regulations at the appropriate time have been considered by this Appellate Tribunal in order to do justice to the rival parties and to maintain balance keeping in view the efficient and proper functioning of the generation, transmission, distribution and power trading in the State of Punjab.

18. We agree to the findings and law laid down by this Appellate Tribunal in its aforementioned judgment dated 02.03.2012 and re -affirmed in judgment dated 18.10.2012. We do not find any cogent or sufficient reasons to deviate from the said law laid down. The said judgments do not require any re -look at this stage by this Appellate Tribunal. Consequently, both the issues are decided in favour of the appellant and the findings recorded in the impugned order to the contrary are liable to be set aside since the said findings of the State Commission are perverse and suffer from error of law.

40. Summary of Findings

40.1. The State Commission has, in the impugned order, wrongly effected a reduction of 17.22% in the employees cost of the appellant on the ground that the employees cost of the appellant are high. The approach of the State Commission in reducing the employees cost to the extent of 17.22% on the ground that the employees cost of the appellant is higher and the appellant does not have control over its employees cost is erroneous and arbitrary. Further, the State Commission is not justified in applying the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) to increase in employees cost and dearness allowance. We do not approve this approach of the State Commission. We agree to the findings laid down by this Appellate Tribunal in its judgments dated 02.03.2012 & 18.10.2012 delivered in Appeal No. 76 of 2011 and Appeal No. 7, 46 & 122 of 2011 respectively. Thus, both the issues i.e. Issue Nos. (i) & (ii) are allowed by us directing the State Commission to re -examine both these issues in the light of our findings recorded earlier in the judgments dated 02.03.2012 and 18.10.2012 in Appeal No. 76 of 2011 and Appeal No. 7 of 2011 & batch."

(3.)ACCORDING to the Review Petitioner, this Appellate Tribunal has while recording Summary of Findings in Para No. 40.1 of the said judgment held that the State Commission has, in the impugned order, wrongly effected a reduction of 17.22% in the employees cost of the appellant Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (respondent herein) on the ground that the employees cost of the appellant are high. This Appellate Tribunal further held that the approach of the State Commission in reducing the employees cost to the extent of 17.22% on the ground that the employees cost of the appellant is higher and the appellant does not have control over its employees cost is erroneous and arbitrary and the State Commission is not justified in applying the Wholesale Price Index (WPI) to increase in employees cost and dearness allowance.